Judgment By Court.-The present appellant, Munshi Baskey has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.1. for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 159 of 1985/ 12 of 1989. The appellant has challenged the said conviction and sentence in the present appeal. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that the informant Bablu Kiskoo (P.W. 1) submitted a fardbeyan on 8.11.1983 that his servant Hiru Tudu (the deceased) had gone to Chatkam Mela but he did not return on that day. On Monday one Baman Hansda reported that Munshi Baskey (the appellant) has made the deceased Hiru Tudu half-dead by assaulting him while he was returning from Mela with his sister-in-law Betimuni Soren (P.W.6) i.e. wife of the appellant. It was reported that the appellant assaulted Hiru Tudu by means of Lathi and he was brought by the witnesses to the house of Paradhan. Then the informant alongwith his father went to Pradhan, Sanjhla Soren and saw his servant Hiru Tudu in senseless condition. On the next day i.e. 7.11.1983 Hiru Tudu died. It is stated that Hiru Tudu used to go to village Kutlu to the wile of the appellant Munshi Baskey who was his sister-in-law and due to that relationship he used to cut jokes with her, which was not liked by the Munshi Baskey (the appellant). It is further alleged that in the Me/a, the appellant saw his wife with the deceased Hiru Tudu which infuriated him and due to which he assaulted the deceased by means of Lathi. 3. The police took up the investigation and thereafter submitted charge-sheet and the appellant was put on trial and the charges were framed against him. 4. In order to establish the charges altogether 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of them, P.W.6 Betimuni Soren, who is none else but the wife of the present appellant herself, is the sole eye witness to the occurrence. The other witnesses are either hearsay and/or not directly on the point of the occurrence. So far as the evidence of P.W. 6 is concerned, it appears that she has stated that her husband assaulted the deceased by means of a piece of bamboo. 5. The other witnesses are either hearsay and/or not directly on the point of the occurrence. So far as the evidence of P.W. 6 is concerned, it appears that she has stated that her husband assaulted the deceased by means of a piece of bamboo. 5. From the entire evidence of the prosecution, it appears that the appellant did not like the deceased, when he used to cut jokes with his wife. On the day of occurrence when he found his wife in the company of the deceased Hiru Tudu in the Mela, this infuriated him which resulted in assault of the deceased by means of a piece of bamboo. 6. From the above evidence, it cannot be inferred that the appellant had any intention to kill the deceased. At best it can be said that he wanted to teach lesson to the deceased. The injuries found on the person of the deceased also do not reflect that the same was caused for killing him. 7. It appears that the appellant after remaining in custody for about 12 years was granted bail by this Court. In our view the present case falls within the purview of Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, i.e. is culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence, passed by the trial court, against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby set aside and the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years. Since the appellant has already remained in custody for more than 12 years and therefore he is not required to be sent to imprisonment any further and as such he is discharged from the liability of bail bonds. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with the modification and alteration in conviction and sentence, as indicated above.